451 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

Don't hold your breath for toggle switches for MAJOR gameplay elements.

I mean, they could develop and balance 3 systems and do 3 times the work in order to make a few people happy.

Or they could put out the one system they believe works best.

Something tells me they're going to go with the one system approach.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 06:23 .

[Nicator]

sinosleep wrote...
 With any kind of ME 1 style over heating
you WILL run into players simply sitting around and circumventing any
ammo counts by waiting for their weapons to cool.

Never mind that they'd immediately start a thread on this forum asking Bioware to remove this new, stupid, illogical and not lore-conform hybrid system that forces them to play the game in such an excuriatingly slow and passive way.

Modifié par Nicator, 11 janvier 2011 - 06:32 .

[The Spamming Troll]

the first time i fired a weapon in ME2, i thought to myself "this isnt right." same thing for abilities as well. my biggest question is why change it? i thought ME1s combat was fine the way it was, ofcorse the flashyness of ME2 would have been a welcomed upgrade. but nontheless, ME1 is a far more inteligent game then ME2 is, and i get the feeling it all started with thermal clips.

ME2 looks more like gears of war then mass effect1. its a shame, because i wanted ME2, not gears of space.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 11 janvier 2011 - 06:43 .

[sinosleep]

Yeah, Gears

in space
with stat based powers
with a controllable squad
with classes
with dialogue trees
with player control of narrative decisions
with side quests

I could go on but with some people, what's the point?

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 06:50 .

[Tasker]

As i've said in other previous threads...

People moan about being able to curcumvent the cooldown in ME1 by using mods, and thus spoiling the game.

But...

It's a single player game, if someone wants to use up mod slots to play the game in a way that makes it fun for them, then why shouldn't they and how does it effect anyone elses game? 

If you don't like the cooling mods then don't sodding use them, it's that easy. There are loads more mods that can be used.

If Bioware were that fussed about it, then they just had to remove the top few levels of the modding system and there you go - problem solved.  instead we get a stupid bloody ammo system that they retcon into the codex by saying it's something that has only just been introduced. And yet, they then go and stick missions in the game, that totaly contradict it.

The cooling/ammo system is just one of the "Let's use a chainsaw instead of a scalple" solutions to a problem that didn't even need fixing.

Change for the sake of change is retarded.

Modifié par Orkboy, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:03 .

[JKoopman]

SalsaDMA wrote...

My example was to give an easy visualization of something that emitted alot less heat than it actually contained. I prefer to asume that a future weaponsgrade heat containemant system would be slightly more effective than just covering something with ash. The example still serves its purpose to make people able to visualize how such a thing can actually be possible, though.

Ejected clips radiate heat, yes. But if they did that while inside the weapon they would be practically useless.

And how exactly do they not radiate heat while inside the weapon? Magic? If it's white-hot when it comes out, logic stands to reason that it would be white-hot while still inside. So those thermal clips aren't shielding the internal components of the weapon from heat anyway.

SalsaDMA wrote...

How many shot do the guns actually fire? Can you tell? There is no ammo counters anywhere and since we already several years ago in the real world have made weapons that fire fast enough for people not to be able to differentiate between the sound of different shots (meaning it sounds like one single shot when you fire multiples) how are you so fire-sure certain that the weapons are not, in fact, firing faster?

Simple. When I pull the trigger of my sniper rifle, I KNOW it's only firing one round (unless I'm using the Incisor, that is). When I pull the trigger of my shotgun, I KNOW it's only firing one round. When I pull the trigger of my Carnifex pistol, I KNOW it's only firing one round. The operation and rate-of-fire of those weapons is the same as their ME1 counterparts, yet their ability to manage heat has been severely gimped. That is not an upgrade, in my opinion.

The only instance where rate-of-fire can be questioned as you did is with asault rifles and SMGs. The later didn't exist in ME1 so no comparison can be made, and the former doesn't appear to fire any faster or more efficiently. As it's impossile to quantify something that can't be seen, I could just as easily say that assault rifles in ME1 actually fired faster and be just as apt to be correct.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Not being able to fire without a thermal clip in ME2 is no different than your ME1 weapon not allowing you to fire while the weapon detects that it could be harmfull to fire that shot.

The difference is that in ME1 I simply wait 3-5 seconds and can fire again whereas my weapon is rendered a useless club if I run out of thermal clips in ME2. Which system would you say is better?

SalsaDMA wrote...

Nobody said the clips are storing heat indefinately.

ME2 says that the clips are storing heat idefinately. Also, several other people in this thread.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Gameplay mechanics 101.

I'm sorry you want everything in the game to be perfect, but things just aren't when making games. Sometimes you have to take some short cuts to be able to make the product in time. This includes not having to implement and test totally different game mechanics for singular cases in the game (like your example, or the example some other people uses of Jacob's loyalty mission). Especially since there has to be gameplay consideration added as well. Like, do you really want to put the player in a scenario where his weapons run out of clips and can't be used after that, having to rely on powers or melee alone? Or in your case, do you really want to give the player a weapon, and then tell him: "Nyeah nyeah, you can't use it, cause it follows a science you don't understand, and researching stuff isn't part of the game"

Would it have been so hard to create a scenario on Aeia where you simply take one of the (older) weapons off a downed hunter and are given unlimited ammo with an overheat bar until the end of the mission? As Christina said, the code for passive weapon cooling is actually in the game, so it couldn't have been terribly difficult to simply activate it briefly for one mission.

Not only would it have been a nice in-game nod to the change in weapons designs, but they could've lowered the rate of fire and/or damage on the older weapon to really rub home how the new designs are actually an improvement, then have the weapon overheat and fail (they're 10 years old, after all) at the end, forcing Shepard to discard it.

SalsaDMA wrote...

There is a benefit, you appearantly just can't see it with 'the naked eye' or hear it with your human biologically limited ear.

A benefit that you can't see or hear or feel is what I like to call "no real benefit".

SalsaDMA wrote...

But you can recall several times where your weapon prevented itself from firing, because the current implemented heat-combatitive elements wouldn't be able to cope with one extra shot. Just like in thermal clip fitted weapons.

Yeah. Again, the key difference is that I waited a few seconds and was able to fire again whereas I can recall many more times where I was prevented from firing permanently by the thermal clip system and had to charge out of cover in the middle of combat to go scrounge up more before firing could resume.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Not really.

Let's look at it this way.

One weapon, the ME1 gun, can be 'upgraded' in various ways. However, the kinetic impact per shot has a certain treshold which is limited both by components on the weapon being needed to combat extra heat, and by components on the weapon increasing the impact. At one point the heat per shot becomes too much, and you can't really go further. You can simulate this in ME1 by using explosive rounds and jacking up +damage mods at the expense of heat. Awesome firepower per shot, but can't go further, and needs to cooldown more or less after every shot.

Now take a thermal clip weapon. All the heat gets redirected into heat clips. No further components are needed to combat extra heat generated, and the amount of heat being able to be drawn from the weapon is in practically unlimited per shot. In theory limited, ofc, but in a region which we wouldn't be able to reach practically. This means that damage upgrades doesn't limit your rate of fire like in ME1. Nor is there the same hardcap on just how much extra kinetic impact you can squeeze out of it.

Now put the 2 weapons side by side at a firing range, shooting at a target powered by the latest in kinetic shields, and ducking behind cover between every shot. Which of the 2 weapons do you think will perform better?

In my opinion, the ME2 model wins hands down here.

Look at it this way.

Take 20 people; 10 on one side of the battlefield and 10 on the other. One group has the old-style passive cooling system and the other has the new-style thermal clips. They each start firing. The group with the thermal clip weaponry is able to kill 8 of the opposing group with their "superior firepower" before they run out of thermal clips. There are only 2 people left in the opposing group, but they still have (for all practical purposes) an unlimited supply of ammunition to send downrange. Whether or not the thermal clip weapons deal slightly more damage or can fire slightly faster is moot at this point, as they're not firing anything now and the 2 people left in the opposing group can easily wipe them out at their leisure.

In my opinion, the ME1 model wins hands down here.

Yeah, I could throw High Explosive Rounds and dual Scram Rails on my sniper rifle and make it overheat with each shot in ME1, but I was still able to fire an indefinite number of shots downrange every 5 seconds as opposed to one shot every 2 seconds for 12 shots before I run out of "ammo" and I'm forced to give up my position and use my long-range sniper rifle as a short-range club with the new system. How is that an improvement?

Modifié par JKoopman, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:12 .

[MarchWaltz]

DrIggy wrote...

One of many mistakes they made related to the ME2 ammo system is that they used this GUI presentation:



Instead of something like this (mockup made by me in about 15 minutes):

This would have been WAY better.

[sinosleep]

People moan about things in single player games because self regulating sucks and the game should be balanced enough where players don't have to.

It sucks playing through a game and KNOWING you are gimping yourself just because you don't want to take advantage of unbalanced gameplay.

BTW you don't need end game mods to get ridiculous cooling. I have a vids of spectre gear weapon with garbage early game level 3 heatsinks

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:15 .

[Stardusk78]

sinosleep wrote...

People moan about things in single player games because self regulating sucks and the game should be balanced enough where players don't have to.

It sucks playing through a game and KNOWING you are gimping yourself just because you don't want to take advantage of unbalanced gameplay.

BTW you don't need end game mods to get ridiculous cooling. I have a vids of spectre gear weapon with garbage early game level 3 heatsinks

Sinosleep, Lord of Shotguns, please tell them to keep thermal clips.

[JKoopman]

sinosleep wrote...

Post combat refills wouldn't bother me the way a hybrid system would. With post combat refills devs can still regulate the amount of ammo that players get per encounter. With any kind of ME 1 style over heating you WILL run into players simply sitting around and circumventing any ammo counts by waiting for their weapons to cool.

How is sitting back in an ideal sniper position taking down opponents at long range and waiting for my weapon to cool down between each shot a game-breaking issue that can only be solved by adding a limited "ammo" supply that forces players to break cover to scrounge clips in the middle of combat?

Seriously, I fail to see the issue here. How is allowing players to play a single-player game in the style that suits them best somehow a bad thing? Can anyone explain that to me?

[sinosleep]

JKoopman wrote...

Look at it this way.

Take 20 people; 10 on one side of the battlefield and 10 on the other. One group has the old-style passive cooling system and the other has the new-style thermal clips. They each start firing. The group with the thermal clip weaponry is able to kill 8 of the opposing group with their "superior firepower" before they run out of thermal clips. There are only 2 people left in the opposing group, but they still have (for all practical purposes) an unlimited supply of ammunition to send downrange. Whether or not the thermal clip weapons deal slightly more damage or can fire slightly faster is moot at this point, as they're not firing anything now and the 2 people left in the opposing group can easily wipe them out at their leisure.

Or you could look at it the way suppresing fire ACTUALLY works.

5 people on one side of the battlefield can put down a steady stream of fire due to the sustained fire thermal clips allow and as such the 10 people on the other side are forced to stay behind cover with their heads down.

The other 5 people flank the 10 people on the other side and kill them all while they're busy covering their heads.

Sustained fire is why the machine gun was a MONUMENTAL advancement in warfare. It allowed sustained suppressive fire that standard rifles simply couldn't match which allowed for far easier flanking movements.

That's what they're talking about when they're talking about putting more rounds down range.

[Kronner]

JKoopman wrote...

Look at it this way.

Take 20 people; 10 on one side of the battlefield and 10 on the other. One group has the old-style passive cooling system and the other has the new-style thermal clips. They each start firing. The group with the thermal clip weaponry is able to kill 8 of the opposing group with their "superior firepower" before they run out of thermal clips. There are only 2 people left in the opposing group, but they still have (for all practical purposes) an unlimited supply of ammunition to send downrange. Whether or not the thermal clip weapons deal slightly more damage or can fire slightly faster is moot at this point, as they're not firing anything now and the 2 people left in the opposing group can easily wipe them out at their leisure.

In my opinion, the ME1 model wins hands down here.

Yeah, I could throw High Explosive Rounds and dual Scram Rails on my sniper rifle and make it overheat with each shot in ME1, but I was still able to fire an indefinite number of shots downrange every 5 seconds as opposed to one shot every 2 seconds for 12 shots before I run out of "ammo" and I'm forced to give up my position and use my long-range sniper rifle as a short-range club with the new system. How is that an improvement?

lol

Who cares? The ammo/thermal clip/whatever made ME2 a much better shooter for most of the players. That was their goal...to make ME2 a better shooter than ME1. They succeeded. Who cares about explanation? A very small, but vocal (on BSN) minority.

[JKoopman]

sinosleep wrote...

People moan about things in single player games because self regulating sucks and the game should be balanced enough where players don't have to.

It sucks playing through a game and KNOWING you are gimping yourself just because you don't want to take advantage of unbalanced gameplay.

BTW you don't need end game mods to get ridiculous cooling. I have a vids of spectre gear weapon with garbage early game level 3 heatsinks

Kind of like how it sucks playing through ME2 as a Vanguard or an Adept or an Engineer knowing that I'm gimping myself with a class that has f**k all for an ammo supply and has to reply almost exlusively on weak tech and biotic powers instead of playing a Soldier-class where I've got access to the AR/Revenant and enough weaponry where thermal clips cease to be an issue.

Modifié par JKoopman, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:24 .

[Tasker]

sinosleep wrote...

People moan about things in single player games because self regulating sucks and the game should be balanced enough where players don't have to.

It sucks playing through a game and KNOWING you are gimping yourself just because you don't want to take advantage of unbalanced gameplay.

BTW you don't need end game mods to get ridiculous cooling. I have a vids of spectre gear weapon with garbage early game level 3 heatsinks

But you weren't gimping yourself.  Thermal cooling isn't the only mod type in the game.

Hell, just get rid of that one mod type altogether.  There problem solved.

You don't have to completely chainsaw off a perfectly working arm, when all you have is a splinter.  The cooling system was perfectly fine.  But no, they had to neuter it and rip out all the mods.

Modifié par Orkboy, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:28 .

[sinosleep]

JKoopman wrote...

Kind of like how it sucks playing through ME2 as a Vanguard or an Adept or an Engineer knowing that I'm gimping myself with a class that has f**k all for an ammo supply instead of playing a Soldier-class where you've got access to the AR/Revenant and enough weaponry where thermal clips cease to be an issue.

Funny, I've got over 60 videos playing primarily as a vanguard on youtube and I rarely if ever run out of ammo. I've also got a few adept and engineer vids, don't run out of ammo with them either.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:26 .

[JKoopman]

Kronner wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Look at it this way.

Take 20 people; 10 on one side of the battlefield and 10 on the other. One group has the old-style passive cooling system and the other has the new-style thermal clips. They each start firing. The group with the thermal clip weaponry is able to kill 8 of the opposing group with their "superior firepower" before they run out of thermal clips. There are only 2 people left in the opposing group, but they still have (for all practical purposes) an unlimited supply of ammunition to send downrange. Whether or not the thermal clip weapons deal slightly more damage or can fire slightly faster is moot at this point, as they're not firing anything now and the 2 people left in the opposing group can easily wipe them out at their leisure.

In my opinion, the ME1 model wins hands down here.

Yeah, I could throw High Explosive Rounds and dual Scram Rails on my sniper rifle and make it overheat with each shot in ME1, but I was still able to fire an indefinite number of shots downrange every 5 seconds as opposed to one shot every 2 seconds for 12 shots before I run out of "ammo" and I'm forced to give up my position and use my long-range sniper rifle as a short-range club with the new system. How is that an improvement?

lol

Who cares? The ammo/thermal clip/whatever made ME2 a much better shooter for most of the players. That was their goal...to make ME2 a better shooter than ME1. They succeeded. Who cares about explanation? A very small, but vocal (on BSN) minority.

I at least care. So unless you're telling me that I don't have a right to voice my opinion simply because I'm not in the "majority", I fail to see your point.

If all you want is a good shooter, there are plenty of options available to you. Go play Call of Duty or Halo or Gears of War. Don't tell me that I shouldn't care about story and lore in a frakking RPG. There's more to Mass Effect that just shooting, you know...

Modifié par JKoopman, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:31 .

[sinosleep]

Orkboy wrote...

But you weren't gimping yourself.  Thermal cooling isn't the only mod type in the game.

Hell, just get rid of that one mod type altogether.  There problem solved.

No, it's not the only mod, it's just a horribly unbalanced one that makes things hella easy and is readily available.

If you remove cooling mods alltogether you're left with either a) slow firing rates  waiting around on overheats, neither of which are conducive to action packed gameplay. I'm not a fan of the overheating mechanic in general.

JKoopman wrote...

How is sitting back in an ideal sniper position taking down opponents at long range and waiting for my weapon to cool down between each shot a game-breaking issue that can only be solved by adding a limited "ammo" supply that forces players to break cover to scrounge clips in the middle of combat?

Seriously, I fail to see the issue here. How is allowing players to play a single-player game in the style that suits them best somehow a bad thing? Can anyone explain that to me?

And some people think Mario games would be more fun if you had infinite lives and got to choose all your power-ups before levels instead of having to find them in boxes, and yet they still have to play their game the way the devs intended it to be played.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:31 .

[Kronner]

JKoopman wrote...

I at least care. So unless you're telling me that I don't have a right to voice my opinion simply because I'm not in the "majority", I ail to see your point.

If all you want is a good shooter, there are plenty of options available to you. Go play Call of Duty or Halo or Gears of War. Don't tell me that I shouldn't care about story and lore in a frakking RPG. There's more to Mass Effect that just shooting, you know...

Yes, I know. But why should the shooting suck (ME1) when it can be really fun (ME2)? BioWare decided to do something, they did offer an explanation. Of course, nothing is perfect so there are people that dislike the change and/or the explanation. But the fact is that most players like ME2's combat better.

[Walker White]

JKoopman wrote...

Kind of like how it sucks playing through ME2 as a Vanguard or an Adept or an Engineer knowing that I'm gimping myself with a class that has f**k all for an ammo supply and has to reply almost exlusively on weak tech and biotic powers instead of playing a Soldier-class where I've got access to the AR/Revenant and enough weaponry where thermal clips cease to be an issue.

Huh?  I have played an adept on Insanity several times now and ammo is rarely a problem.  The only time that ammo runs low is when I try a sniper-adept build, but that is because sniper ammo is a problem for all classes.  I never run out of SMG ammo.

My soldier play-through was the only time that I found ammo to be a major issue.  I began to really appreciate the ammo boosts that power cells give you; otherwise, I would have never had enough ammo.

[sinosleep]

JKoopman wrote...

I at least care. So unless you're telling me that I don't have a right to voice my opinion simply because I'm not in the "majority", I fail to see your point.

If all you want is a good shooter, there are plenty of options available to you. Go play Call of Duty or Halo or Gears of War. Don't tell me that I shouldn't care about story and lore in a frakking RPG. There's more to Mass Effect that just shooting, you know...

We don't have plenty of other shooters with dialogue trees, a narrative we have some control over, a controllable squad, classes, powers, etc, etc, etc. Why do so many of you people resort to this "us vs them" NONSENSE when it comes to Mass Effect's shooter mechanics? 

We want the rpg aspects to be good, and we want the shooter mechanics to be good. We're also not naive enough to believe ME 2 was the first game in the history of gaming to fudge the lore in favor of a gameplay mechanic they wanted to impliment.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:34 .

[Tasker]

ME1 was unique, ME2 is a bit unique.

I used to buy Bioware games because I knew they were a unique experience.

Now Bioware games seem to be going more mainstream, and if it continues then Bioware will just end up as another developer pushing out average generic crap that get lost in a swamp of similar games

If I want to play a shooter game for it's shooter elements and not it's roleplaying elements, then I certainly wouldn't pick Mass Effect, as every shooter element Bioware have tried to impliment has been done so, so much more competently in hundreds of other games.

[Walker White]

sinosleep wrote...

We want the rpg aspects to be good, and we want the shooter mechanics to be good. We're also not naive enough to believe ME 2 was the first game in the history of gaming to fudge the lore in favor of a gameplay mechanic they wanted to impliment.

I have lost count of the number of times D&D (been playing since the brown books in the 70s) has done this.  In fact, I generally find the approaches where they do not bother to justify any of it with game lore (e.g. 3.x) to be better than those times where they do (2ed, 4ed).

[JKoopman]

sinosleep wrote...

And some people think Mario games would be more fun if you had infinite lives and got to choose all your power-ups before levels instead of having to find them in boxes, and yet they still have to play their game the way the devs intended it to be played.

Funny you should mention that since so many people had such a problem with playing ME1 "the way the devs intended it to be played" (ie: trigger discipline, managing heat, waiting for cooldowns) and complained enough that BioWare changed the entire system for ME2.

Kronner wrote...

Yes, I know. But why should the shooting
suck (ME1) when it can be really fun (ME2)? BioWare decided to do
something, they did offer an explanation. Of course, nothing is perfect
so there are people that dislike the change and/or the explanation. But
the fact is that most players like ME2's combat better.

Nobody before ME2 came out was advocating that ME1's combat was perfect. We all expecting tweaks and improvements. What we got was a total redesign with a half-assed in-game explanation.

I have no illusions that ME3 will go back to ME1's system, nor is that what I wish to have happen. I simply want, again, tweaks and improvements.

Simply put, I disagree that shooting would "suck" with a hybrid system. And I'll maintain that pont of view until someone can successfully explain exactly how a hybrid system would ruin combat in ME3 simply by allowing players who choose to do so the option of waiting for their weapons to cool down when thermal clips are unavailable.

sinosleep wrote...

We don't have plenty of other shooters with dialogue trees, a narrative we have some control over, a controllable squad, classes, powers, etc, etc, etc. Why do so many of you people resort to this "us vs them" NONSENSE when it comes to Mass Effect's shooter mechanics? 

We want the rpg aspects to be good, and we want the shooter mechanics to be good. We're also not naive enough to believe ME 2 was the first game in the history of gaming to fudge the lore in favor of a gameplay mechanic they wanted to impliment.

Perhaps because so many people who support ME2's combat system and thermal clips seem to have the mentality that combat/shooting comes before ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

Modifié par JKoopman, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:48 .

[Walker White]

Orkboy wrote...
If I want to play a shooter game for it's shooter elements and not it's roleplaying elements, then I certainly wouldn't pick Mass Effect, as every shooter element Bioware have tried to impliment has been done so, so much more competently in hundreds of other games.

Really?  So there are other shooters out there with tactical pause and heavy CC abilities?  Because I have not found any and I am always looking for more games to play.

[sinosleep]

JKoopman wrote...
Funny you should mention that since so many people had such a problem with playing ME1 "the way the devs intended it to be played" (ie: trigger discipline, managing heat, waiting for cooldowns) and complained enough that BioWare changed the entire system for ME2.

The same devs who admitted they're not particularly good at making shooters and as such KNEW they had to change things for ME 2.

So with that in mind, what's your point? They tried something and realized it wasn't very good, so they emulated other games in the genre that they knew were good and we got ME 2. Interview after interview they've said nothing other than being happy with what they changed or ME 2 so I don't think complaining about it is going to change anything.

With regards to the rest of your post,

It's a gross exageration that we think shooter mechanics should come before all else. What some of us are aware of is that often GAMEplay mechanics, REGARDLESS OF WHAT GENRE THEY SPRING FROM, are going to take priority over something like lore from time to time in videoGAMES.

Again, don't tell me you're so naive as to believe ME 2 is the first game guilty of doing this. It's not the first, and it's not even in the minority, video games do this ALL THE TIME. Gameplay is going to trump lore, end of.

Modifié par sinosleep, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:49 .